Case Summary (G.R. No. 189698)
Procedural Posture and Motions
COMELEC filed a timely motion for reconsideration on December 14, 2009, challenging the Court’s scheduling of the 15-day reglementary period. Three movants-intervenors likewise sought leave to intervene and filed motions for reconsideration-in-intervention after the December 1 decision. The Court found that, except for the IBP-Cebu City Chapter, all motions for intervention were timely and raised substantial interests that could not be vindicated elsewhere.
Substantive Issues Presented
- Constitutional proscription against appointive officials and military personnel engaging in partisan political activity.
- Validity under the equal protection clause of differential treatment between elective and appointive officials.
- Overbreadth of statutes deeming appointive officials as resigned upon filing a certificate of candidacy.
- Governmental interest in preserving impartiality and public confidence in the civil service.
Timeliness and Propriety of Interventions
- Section 1, Rule 52 and Section 2, Rule 56-A of the Rules of Court affirm COMELEC’s 15-day window for reconsideration, making its motion timely.
- Rule 19 permits intervention when a party’s substantial rights may be prejudiced; the Court exercised its discretion to admit Senator Roxas, Senators Drilon and Apacible, but denied intervention to IBP-Cebu City Chapter for lack of specific interest.
Interpretation of the Deemed-Resigned Provisions
Section 4(a) of Resolution 8678, Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code, and the second proviso of Section 13, R.A. 9369 implement the 1987 Constitution’s ban on appointive officials engaging in partisan political campaigns (Art. IX-B, Sec. 2[4]) by deeming them resigned upon filing their certificate of candidacy. Elected officials remain unrestrained because, by nature, they participate in politics throughout their terms.
Equal Protection Analysis
- Classification between elective and appointive officials rests on substantial distinctions: elective tenure by popular mandate versus appointive service at the pleasure or for fixed civil-service terms; prohibition of partisan activity for civil servants.
- FariAas v. The Executive Secretary upheld differential treatment under the equal protection clause. The Court reaffirmed stare decisis and found no violation of equal protection in maintaining the deemed-resigned rule for appointive officials.
Overbreadth Analysis
- To invalidate facially, overbreadth must be “real and substantial” in relation to legitimate scope.
- The provisions target partisan political activity by appointive officials in national and local partisan elections, and barangay elections have a distinct deeming rule (Sec. 39, OEC).
- No showing was made of substantial, unquestionably protected conduct falling within the statutes’ sweep; speculative claims do not justify wholesale invalidation. The Court opted for case-by-case enforcement rather than a total nullification.
Rationale for Reversal of the December 1 Decision
- COMELEC’s and movants’ arguments on constitutional proscription, equal p ...continue reading
Case Syllabus (G.R. No. 189698)
Facts and Petition
- Eleazar P. Quinto and Gerino A. Tolentino, Jr. filed a Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition before the Supreme Court.
- They challenged as unconstitutional:
• The second proviso in the third paragraph of Section 13 of Republic Act (RA) 9369 (amending RA 8436),
• Section 66 of the Omnibus Election Code (Batas Pambansa Blg. 881), and
• Section 4(a) of Commission on Elections (COMELEC) Resolution No. 8678. - The assailed provisions deemed appointive officials (including AFP members and GOCC officers) “ipso facto resigned” upon filing their Certificate of Candidacy (CoC).
- On December 1, 2009, the Court en banc granted the petition, declared those provisions unconstitutional for violating the equal protection clause and for overbreadth, and effectively allowed appointive officials to remain in office while running for elective posts.
Motions for Reconsideration and Intervention
- On December 14, 2009, the COMELEC filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the December 1 Decision.
- Movants-intervenors who also sought reconsideration-in-intervention included:
• Senator Manuel A. Roxas,
• Former Senator Franklin M. Drilon,
• IBP-Cebu City Chapter, and
• Tom V. Apacible. - The Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) filed, on January 8, 2010, a motion for clarification, disagreeing with the COMELEC’s position and questioning the broader impact of the assailed Decision.
Procedural Issues
- Timeliness of COMELEC’s Motion for Reconsideration:
• Under Rule 56-A, Section 2 (in relation to Rule 52, Section 1 of the Rules of Court), COMELEC had 15 days from notice (received December 2) to file.
• Its December 14, 2009 motion (with proof of service on December 17) was timely. - Propriety of Motions for Reconsideration-in-Intervention:
• Rule 19, Section 1 requires a movant to show a substantial interest and inability to protect that interest elsewhere.
• Section 2 allows intervention any time before judgment; the Court may nonetheless permit late intervention in the interest of justice.
• The Court admitted all movants-intervenors except IBP-Cebu City Chapter, which f